Hitch had esophageal cancer, but remained active speaking and debating through his chemo until he lost his voice. Here’s him in a televised debate on the question, “Is the Catholic church a force for good in the world?” …watch a bishop getting a classic hitchslap.

He was diagnosed with cancer of the esophagus only after he was forced to seek medical attention because he could eat nothing at all. I think that that was May or June of last year. He apparently underwent chemo. and/or radiation and was actually out lecturing a bit after that. He said at the time that he would be lucky to be alive in 5 years, which seems an upbeat way of expressing the fact that the anticipated “5 year survival” with treatment was less than 20%. RIP

The question “Was he sick?” puzzles me —- I don’t know of a news source that didn’t cover his illness extensively. Interviews on NPR, many columns in “Vanity Fair,” and all the attendant hoopla that a media personality (which Hitchens became as soon as he turned rightward) attracts. — Apparently, one of his chief regrets at dying so young was that he wouldn’t be able to write Henry Kissinger’s obituary.

The “Left” couldn’t really claim him, and the “Right” couldn’t claim him. Kinda like Michael Moore belonging to NRA. Things are never as “Black’n’White” as the media would like.
Too bad, too young.
I always respected him for speaking his mind. Even during the invasion. Though he thoroughly pissed me off at the time.

Erasmus – I guess I wasn’t paying attention. I do remember seeing him on Bill Maher’s show a few years ago, and he didn’t look well. But that could have been the flu for all I know.

moviedad – Your broader point is true, but Moore’s NRA membership is a bit of a schtick.

Hitchens moved hawkish after 911, but he’s always been an ideological maverick. He was also very direct. The first time I ever saw him was on Crossfire during the 1980s when he was opposite Ed Meese, and right there in the studio, to Meese’s growling face, he said, “you are a liar, and cheat, and a thief.” Pat Buchanan and even the liberal Tom Braden held their breath in that moment, and I think they broke to a commercial early.

You can be a magnificent human being and also be wrong about some substantial issues; in fact, that’s practically inevitable.

When I disagreed with Christopher Hitchens, it made me worry that I was missing something or that I was refusing to see some truth. I still feel that way about his position on the Iraq War. When I disagreed with Wolfowitz or Cheney, I didn’t worry at all or feel any need to think things through more thoroughly.

Hitchens’ goofy neologism, islamofascism, contributed as little to the debate about the invasion of Iraq as his essays did. Michael Thomas summed him up rather well in a Facebook thread:
“… it struck me as decidedly odd that a polemicist of his gifts should live year after year in Washington and yet completely avoid addressing what was being done to this country by people he saw regularly. His enthusiasm for the Iraq war I dismiss. Everyone’s entitled to bouts of lunacy. But to have dwelled so long among the swine, to turn up regularly at the trough … strikes me as extremely incongruous … too many journalists wish to dine with people they ought to wish to dine on.”

And, Bolithio, it’s funny how kind people have been to Hitchens when he was so cruel to others in obituaries that he wrote (and in the case of Edward Said, the obit wasn’t sufficiently pitiless, he was an abrasive, sadistic critic while Mr. Said was dying).

In the old documentary about the New York Intellectuals I’m in the process of reviewing, Nathan Glazer reflects upon a conversation with his father in which he told his father that he no longer believed in God. His father responded, “you really think God cares?”

I’m not up on intellectual pissing matches. All I can say is I went to the Glenn Greenwald story you linked to and clicked (with some worry) on the link from the words “celebrated the virtues of endless war.”

What I found was a piece by Hitchens that ends this way:

“We do have certain permanent enemies—the totalitarian state; the nihilist/terrorist cell—with which “peace” is neither possible nor desirable. Acknowledging this, and preparing for it, might give us some advantages in a war that seems destined to last as long as civilization is willing to defend itself.”

I was opposed to the Iraq war from before it began. I think the only letter I ever sent to the Times-Standard was sent shortly after 9/11, saying that I hoped we would get the criminals who committed the crime without ignoring the effects of war on the innocent mothers and children of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I think Hitchens was wrong about the Iraq War. But I think the closing paragraph above is exactly correct, and I admire Hitchens for his willingness to say it. The unwillingness of most of the left to say as much is why I would be disgusted to be called a “leftist.”

The thing about Chomsky is that nothing he says or writes surprises me. Anything I read, I feel like I’ve read it before. He’s one of those guys who has a cookie cutter approach to politics, and even though I agree with about 80 percent of what he says, I just don’t find him interesting to read. I probably only agree with Hitchens in 40 percent of what he says lately, but he’s more interesting. Cockburn has wit, but he is also fairly predictable.

I think, Suzy, Jane may have been suggesting that Hitchens tried to think each topic through thoroughly from first principles, rather than just lazily coming up with an opinion that fit well with his other opinions or with those of “the right people.”

Perhaps that is why Eric found him more interesting than he found some others.

Hitchens was no “messenger,” if that’s what you’re suggesting. He wasn’t a hard-working journalist, bringing truth to light, he was a hard-drinking polemicist, a witty and superficial entertainer. If he’s remembered, it will be for style, not substance.

In the first video that AG linked, we see Hitchens describing the horrific crimes of the Catholic church. Yes, this may not be that brave in his circles, but it is brave in the world. He also has the decency to do it face to face with a Catholic bishop, not while in hiding.

He concludes that piece with a statement regarding the doctrine of papal infallibility. It is extraordinarily stylish, and FILLED with substance. His wit enables many people to view something in a new light.

You show me a historical document about a hard-working journalist bringing truth to light and I’ll show you a polemicist and a witty entertainer. The hard-drinking is of no relevance, and we disagree about the superficiality. In my opinion, he was anything but superficial.

I think near the top, somebody or some link pointed out what a polarizing figure he was. Too true.

Speaking of polarizing, Joel, what word would you use for a political system that is run by a religious leadership that insists women must be covered head to toe when leaving the home of their spouse/owner, and otherwise treats half the human race as property?

Islamofascism didn’t have legs because, in part, it was etymologically weak. I’ve known middle eastern fascists. They are the Catholic Falangists of Lebanon. They are, for the most, very pleasant people. They would take exception to the sloppy, ignorant term Islamofascist.

Hitchens thought that Clinton’s impeachment was his ticket to stardom (you may recall how often he made the rounds of the Sunday yak shows in Washington during the trial), but it didn’t pan out. Later, he hitched his wagon to the triumphant neocons (Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al) who were leading us to sure victory in Babylon. That didn’t work out so well either, and he didn’t talk about it much in recent years. Coining Islamofascism was just part of his campaign to promote himself.

I am not as familiar as you, Joel, with the various groups in Lebanon. But when any powerful religious hierarchy takes complete or near-complete political control over people’s worldly lives, it certainly sounds like fascism to me. In the case of fundamentalist Muslims, islamofascism sounds reasonable.

If Israel were similarly controlled by its religious minority, and the chief rabbi could have someone crushed under a wall for a homosexual act, Judeofascist would be a reasonable term. And, here in America, if Pat Robertson dictated behavior from the supreme coutr, I think Christian-fascist would be appropriate.

My understanding from my limited reading on the subject is that Islam is much less comfortable than Judaism and Christianity with the idea that the political state can be independent of the religious authorities. It also seems to have a much more powerful group of fundamentalists than the other branches of the Abrahamic religion.

Have it your way, but a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Be all that you can be, Suzy. Reach out and touch someone. When you got it, flaunt it! Because you’re worth it! Love is all around, no need to waste it.

Between love and madness lies obsession. You’re gonna make it after all.

-Mitch, Dont bite your nails. Even if theres no rhyme or reason for it, whats a little misplaced punctuation mark among friends? When push comes to shove, hang in there and cross that bridge when you comma to it.

But, he insisted, he wasn’t making a complete about-turn. Though no longer a socialist, he was still a Marxist, and an admirer of Lenin, Trotsky and Che Guevera; capitalism, the transforming powers of which Marx recognised, had proved the more revolutionary economic system and, politically, the American revolution was the only one left in town. He remained committed to civil liberties. After voluntarily undergoing waterboarding, he denounced it as torture, and he was a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Bush’s domestic spying programme. He never let up in his “cold, steady hatred … as sustaining to me as any love” of all religions.